tv [untitled] November 19, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm PST
how are you doing outreach to make sure the neighbors and neighborhoods around the development are really involved? and i know lisa pagan also mentioned the neighborhoods are really critical but i just wanted to have some sense of numbers and how you're going to get better data and include the neighborhoods more. >> thank you. we had 55 people at the first workshop. working closely with [speaker not understood] helping us with outreach, she maintains the list of community members who are involved who asked questions. we also worked with the cac and the cac drives a big turnout. i'm building that mailing list as i go because as we get a lot of comments online, we have an interactive place where people can plug into give us input and be part of our e-mail list. we're trying to go beyond e-mail. we have social networks, conventional mail, handwritten a few letters who to people who don't want to work on
computers. this is helping get out to the bigger community. this is the time to work with us and it would be fantastic to have the input televised and having more forums like these. >> i would agree with you that the people plan for the america's cup is good data, but this is specific to this area. that's a little bit different than the america's cup which as a huge spill. i'm glad there is a commitment to work closely with the neighborhood surrounding the development. so, thank you. >> may i? >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. mr. albert, thank you so much. i do appreciate the fact i do think the outreach has been done since august in the neighborhood and there have been a number of meetings, the turnouts have been really great. i think those from the warriors and [speaker not understood] have been really supportive outreach and i want to appreciate that. for a project of this size. i was wondering if you could go over a little bit some of the lessons we learned from the
giants stadium as another large kind of public event institution in the city. i know that we've collected the data. we have some kind of [speaker not understood]. what were positive things the city could do or meet the needs or increase of the giants stadium? what were some of the lessons we learned, things we can improve on for the next project? >> thank you. well, looking even back as 1999 when we started projecting what we thought might happen, that was before the stadium opened, i think there were -- i have data here from my colleague jerry robbins who has been instrumental in helping build the plan. it is a little more than 52%. were expected to come by car during the weekday. that went up to 68%, 65% on the weekend. those are the assumptions in the e-i-r. they're pretty close to what happened initially. what we also saw, though, that we didn't -- that we see now that are bigger numbers than we projected, a big increase in
the walk and the bike mode split. the bike valley parking the giants worked really well. transit rider ship in the beginning was 41% which is easily the highest transit mode we saw in ballparks around the country. that settled into 25% mode split. it puts us in the top 3. chicago has 23-1/2. so, those benchmarks are far and above the transit mode system we've seen are around the country. i'm a little worried why we at mta contributed from the 40 to 20 and i can tell you one of the challenges we have to do is to sustain the great word of mouth. the transit is a way to get there. the list for me is the america's cup experience. you remember the weekend supposed to end by weekend. october 6 or october 7 where we had america's cup fleet week, giants, 49ers, everything happening. we had extraordinary transit modes. we had record rider ship on every single conveyor of people moving out of the area. the lesson is don't scare people away.
invite them to take transit. make the options real. do fantastic marketing. i have a feeling our transit was some of the highest we ever saw. it is much more malleable formula. i would say the assumptions back in '99 weren't that far off from where we were, but the trends we're seeing now are positive in getting more people walking and bicycle and especially with the america's cup experience on transit. >> my question, then -- another question on the giants stadium, when you looked at the cost in terms of the transit investments that we had to make, some increased demand in the neighborhood, do you feel like we were able to adequately calculate those costs and how with the warriors arena do we plan to estimate from that? and if the impact fee is in the rider ship, what you pay when you get on mound and i cover that, what are some ideas that we may have to explore? >> we do have a lot of great information from the america's cup. i can tell you not just muni, because there is so much more [speaker not understood].
they provided what their cost was to the augmented service. america's cup, one thing we wanted to do was deal with the perception if there was a major event on one part of town draining other parts of town from resources. we developed the people plan to float the high level of transit above the baseline so you could see the ongoing service in every neighborhood isn't really affected by the great demand in the northeast waterfront. that would be the basis for this assessment. we don't want to cannibalize transit to feed another. that comes with a cost. we can provide the cost. i had a chance to meet with the ceo of the warriors, [speaker not understood]. and he's approached our cfo with some innovative ideas with his experience in phoenix and we want to make sure transbay in san francisco, phoenix and san francisco are two different city, but the idea for innovation and building in the ticket, with a ticket transit incentive is tremendous. and it actually makes people feel the transit is part of the whole experience of going to the game.
it actually minimizes the cost of the psychological barrier. and after the america's cup experience, we have a lot of fertile ground to work with. >> and just one more question. i know some people, and including in the plans, brought up the concept of water taxis and ferries. that can be an advantage of the site. and given, of course, we anticipate a lot of fans, others, participants from the east bay, that could be one way to kind of increase public transit, but also mitigate some of the concerns about crowd control after games as they're heading back the other way directly off the pier onto ferry boats. what is the realistic nature of those types of alternatives and how can we begin to explore them? >> thank you. so, for the transit, classic transit service, golden gate, the boat pro supplieders that take you to the ball parks, they carry about a third of the transit rider ship already at the ballpark. that is a tare men disamount of lift.
it is much higher than the representation of the commuters downtown. water taxi is a new animal. the port just finished the fee process. i was on the water taxi with the bidders because i wanted to see what value they could add specifically for america's cup. my brain doesn't stop therethv i wanted to look atwater taxi as a resource. [speaker not understood]. i want to talk to them more extensively about next year. this gives us plenty time what water taxis mean by the time it is open in 2017, 2018. >> thank you. i just want to say i think this is a truly critical part of this development as we move forward and i appreciate the work that is happening in this area. i know that supervisor wiener has some questions, but i just want to make sure that we continue to look at this, one of the top concerns of course are we going to be able to [speaker not understood] to meet this need and how do we serve it, but also not impact other parts of the city as well. and then how can we also enhance some of the existing issues that already exist in
the neighborhood even without the warriors arena that have safety issues, the bike access as well as other public transit. you i really look forward to working with you and the mta as we move forward with this. i believe supervisor wiener has questions as well. * >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for that presentation, mr. albert. very much appreciate it. the plan seems like solid in many ways but in the linchpin to all of this is muni. i'm hopeful to have a great water taxi system even better, better and berry ferry system. hopefully the cpuc won't kill off the uber and other kinds of innovative car sharing services and we'll be able to have that and better biking and pedestrian. really at the heart of this is muni. and i guess my question for you is putting aside sort of the grand planning and vision, what
level of confidence do you have by the time this arena opens, muni is actually going to do what it needs to do to invest in a system and expand the system and be able to actually service this? because this is a lot of [speaker not understood]. i'm very supportive of this project. i think it could be a really, really great thing for san francisco. but i do have concerns about whether muni will actually be able to in a very tangible way invest in the system, make it more reliable and expand the system to allow this to work. i mean, we've seen, for example, in terms of muni's toke of light rail vehicles, a whole hearing on this this morning, it has typically -- you need 114 to operate and typically has 114 functional. so, if one goes out of service, there is usually nothing to replace it. we've seen in my district the upper market area where we're adding thousands of units of
new housing and our subway capacity is inadequate to meet current demand. and i keep promising my constituents that, don't worry, muni is on it. we're going to be working very hard and expanding service and making it more reliable. but at some point it starts to ring hollow. so, i want this to succeed and i don't want it to be a transportation nightmare. and i think for that to happen, muni has to be able to invest and expand. and right now i don't see that. and i think very highly of current muni management. but i think we just don't see the level of investment that we need for a growing system. so, i'd be curious to know your thoughts on that. >> thank you. as a constituent of the district when somebody gets passed by trains are too crowded by the time you get to church street, i would be the first person [speaker not understood] when it comes to working with my management if there wasn't a level of commitment. here's what i can tell you. at america's cup we learned what we can do.
we have a team, a system that is going to be incidental or instrumental to managing loads that are above and beyond extraordinary. i think that is one of the big concerns if we have an arena and ballpark and new development at pier 70, clearly there are going to be demands on the system that are bigger. >> if i can interject and i'm sorry to interrupt. i think mta did an outstanding job around the america's cup and whatever -- the 12 things were happening in the city the same day. absolutely outstanding job. that is a very unique and singular situation. america's cup is not a great comparison because it's specific dates. it's not many days a year every year into eternity. and, so, i think this is much more about the structural day-to-day operations of muni. >> thank you. that's where i was going. so, when we did this episodic heavy lift, we learned there are going to be things hard to sustain. why do we not do this kind of
service all the time? what are the capital shortcomings of the system that make it hard for us to run the e line and augment the others? what are the operational challenges? because to get a bunch of operators in for a big day is one thing. how do you sustain that, how do you train the drivers in advance? how do you have a graduating class well before the demand? this year a few things given me a greater sense of confidence. we worked on this and did some of the planning at the hunters point shipyard. to procure the streetcars we need, we need them three years in advance of when they should be running. we have to order streetcars so we have bigger capacity, we have to be three years ahead of the implementation of the project. so, we've embedded now in the procurement cycle the extra streetcars we need working with the capital program. he knows what the model will tell us. he'll put it into the capital program and then we'll have a fleet, not the order when they're needed to run, but the order tested, the streetcars and actually running on the street. the cost of the infrastructure itself, the rail, the rail
switches that help the e he line work not just when there is a big day but around the clock, those are real switches that make it easier for drivers to not have to get out of the trains and flip the switch and get back in the train. those are embedded not necessarily extensive, but they need to be part of the capital program. there is a whole spreadsheet of all the operational capital investments that are needed to get this level of service not just for an episodic thing, but for really the quality of the whole waterfront. that is part of our assessment. and a lot of that [speaker not understood] america's cup because we pushed up against the capacity of the system. that tells you we're paying attention to what the shortfall is between an episodic thing and permanent. >> absolutely. in terms of the planning and the thinking, what you're doing, i think it's all very best of the best. [speaker not understood] -- i'm not convinced -- i want to be
convinced muni will do what it needs to do and stay focused for a sustained period of time on improving and expanding service. >> just to conclude that, i had meetings with john haley next week. he's going to help me with the service planning. he's going to know the full range of it. the trick of this assessment is that not all the impacts are going to happen in the next year or next few years. so, we do have to measure up with the milestones when a certain development opens. [speaker not understood] we're not just paying attention to the waterfront projects. we're looking at the transbay transit center. we're looking at all other a big demands. it would be wrong for us to be claiming for capacity improvements just on the waterfront when so much is happening one block inland. do share your confidence with the administration. i've worked with muni long enough to see the different responses that come out of these demands, the teams, input in command that report back to capital and say if you want to do this all the time, you need to think about this salient piece of infrastructure or this
sorely needed upgrade over there. that is a conversation that is happening at mta. * i'm certainly helping shepherd in this direction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisors, [speaker not understood] with port. the planning development division there. i want to briefly provide the planning context for the design presentation that you are about to see. as you know, the port owns the -- most of the waterfront property on the bay from fisherman's wharf do you rememberctionv to india basin and the bayview. in 1997 waterfront land use plan was adopted, the first waterfront land use plan for the port after a multi-year process. community planning process to develop -- to determine what the uses would be for that property, what kinds of uses would be acceptable and
unacceptable for that 7-1/2 miles of waterfront property that we own and manage on behalf of the state. the main thrust of that waterfront land use plan was determining what the port priority uses would be, specifically in the maritime uses for the various subareas. there are five subareas within the waterfront land use plan. it also focused on park and open space systems as well as creating mixed use development, opportunity areas for each of the five -- each of the five subareas. i should mention again one of the primary thrust of the waterfront land use plan was reconnecting san francisco with its waterfront. when that plan was adopted, working with city family, the city's general plan and planning code were amended so
that the policies including design review process within the plan were in keeping with the waterfront plan. as you know, the bacon certification development commission has plan districts, basin property as well. their master plan, their bay plan after the waterfront land use plan was amended -- was adopted, their bay plan was also amended so that policies could be aligned. and also to make sure that there was a robust design review process and that design review process is a joint process between the city and dcdc. specifically the south beach sub area anticipated a number of uses, but more importantly,
it anticipated large scale waterfront attractions like sports facilities, like the perez presentation you're about to see. specific to pier 30-32 and seawall 330, the site of this proposal. * piers 30-32, the plan anticipated entertainment and assemble uses, commercial activities, public open space, maritime and water dependent uses, the kinds of elements that you'll see within the presentation that are about to be presented. as it relates to seawall lot 330 on the west side of the embarcadaro, that seawall lot was anticipated within the plan as a transition from waterfront uses to the kinds of uses, residential uses in the south beach community. so, that site, seawall 330,
anticipated residential, hotels, those kinds of uses in addition to commercial activities. i wanted to note as it related to the immediate context. the adjacent facility, [speaker not understood] adjacent to the site are developed with sheds, bulkhead buildings, and the waterfront plan specifically mentions that there is an opportunity in its large vacant site to develop new waterfront architecture that could be complementary to the historic facilities adjacent to it, but could be a departure from these 100-year old buildings that occupy piers 26, 28, 38, and other adjacent piers. so, with that brief introduction or brief reference
to the waterfront plan, wanted to introduce the next speaker, ken rich, who is going to talk specifically about the context for this design. >> good afternoon, supervisors. ken rich, ouwd. this is a brief introduction to the main event, which is craig dikers. first, we want to thank everyone involved,edth warriors, design team, large city staff team, and most importantly the cac and the community at large for working with us to develop and respond to a design concept in what has been a very short period of time given the magnitude and complexity of the project. and second, we want to make it clear that even though as you will see, there is a ton of work and thought, there is obviously put into the design so far, we are very early in the process and there will be a lot more evolution over the next year. so, by way of a brief introduction to the concept itself or the design itself, please keep in mind that this is a concept, not a finished design ferment however, pretty
some of the pictures look, this is a concept. that means it's more about at this stage the function of the sites, use kind of a prosaic word, the shapes, the materials of the building are not proposed yet. basically today we would ask you to focus on whether the proposal succeeds in meeting the basic goals that we have for a development on this site. these were developed early by staff and discussed with the community at early cac meetings. let me suggest a few questions to keep in mind, if i may, as you watch the presentation. so, for the piers, the proposal succeed in offering a variety of different kinds of assets to the water and water-related activities? does the proposal maximize usable public open space? does it [speaker not understood] public or private? does the proposal preserve or even enhance the most important views of the water and of the bridge? and that is not all views which would be impossible, but the key most important views.
so, if the proposal [speaker not understood] mass of the arena building and parking structure, does the proposal set up pedestrian and auto circulation in such a way that they don't conflict with each other or jamb up the streets? all in all, on the piers, can you imagine the proposal for the pier actually adding value and beauty to what is already a pretty spectacular location? and then quickly for the other side of the street, the seawall lot, sort of the set of different criteria, does the proposal feel like a part of the city and the neighborhood? does the proposal help create an appropriate edge to the city as it meets the water? does it come down to the street at a human scale along the embarcadaro? does it offer transparency, in other words, views into the shop or the lobby from the sidewalk? is the edge along the embarcadaro aligned with active uses and does it feel comfortable to walk along the embarcadaro? in term of the higher buildings proposed on the seawall lot, do
they preserve important public view corridors? and lastly i'd like to go ahead and introduce craig dikers, the lead designer of the architecture firm, to take you through the design proposal. tanks. -- thanks. >> thank you very much. thank you, supervisors, and audience. it's an honor and a privilege to present some of our ideas and developments that we've had to date. and as mentioned earlier, we're still in a very preliminary stage of the work. and we hope our design will be seen as providing a clear conceptual development around which variations to the design can develop over time as we have more feedback from the community and from those invested in the project. the first thing to point out to you in this first slide are some of the basic principles that define our way of thinking. as you can see, there is the blue swath that covers both pier 30, 32 and the seawall side and that is because we understand both of these developments to be integral
with one another and to have -- and provide a similar sensibility, although complementary as you move along the embarcadaro. you'll also notice that on each side of the pier site you'll see slightly different colors. that is because we want every edge of the pier to be responding in a unique way to its unique conditions. it is a very, very large pier site. so, one would imagine that each of the edges of it would have a different condition. so, along the north side nearest to pier 28, a more urban quality to that side of the pier. to the east side, the width and breadth of the pier over looks the very broad areas of the bay and of the water and coast lines beyond towards oakland. we want to provide a large views and connected views and movement along the east side of the pier. then to the south adjacent to the new street wharf project, we want to create a more recreational low rise atmosphere, the best response to these new developments by
the city and to the west. alongside the seawall sites, we want to have a scale that's intimate with the embarcadaro and that is responsive to the cultural traditions that most people recognize along the embarcadaro. you'll also see squares, there is a little square up there that's red. that is the location of reds which is one of the structures on the site. and there's been another blue square off to the left that is the water mark residences that are part of the adjoining sites here and we're trying to take care of their interests as we develop the project further. you maybe have seen some images of this site in the past. this is one of the views taken from a newspaper article showing a earlier understanding of what might be built here and essentially the arena was placed in the center of the site. maximizing large areas of open space towards the east side. the challenge with such a design is that it blocks views rather tremendously from many of the surrounding areas and certainly changes the context
of the waterfront that people have become accustomed to here. our project has been focused on looking at not only the private views, but also the public views in and around the site. these are some of the view corridors that we studied from the existing buildings. and you can see here pushing them all together sort of basic understanding of what impacts the arena and the largest mass of the arena would have on these surroundings. there is an area that is more or less open out towards the edge. and we found that by placing a building there, it would also diminish the impact of views and experience along the embarcadaro. so, this is where the pier is based centrally as you might have seen it in the past. this is moving it out and rotating it slightly so it falls into a zone which we feel has least impact more towards the east than originally anticipated. now, there are a number of other concerns about these view
corridor studies of seawall. i'd like to address those in a moment. for the meantime i'd like to say these corridor studies are important to the arena itself. there is a very large structure and will have certainly the most impact on the surroundings, more than the structures that are anticipated in building here. >> before you move on, if i can ask the question, because it's come up with some of the our residents [speaker not understood]. can you go over which sites you've examined and how you chose those sites? clearly the first one is the water mark, but if you could -- [multiple voices] >> yes. each of those sort of orange blocks that you see filled out are the immediate adjacent sites as well as the public view spaces. so, we have two sets on the top which are on bryant street. those are immediately adjacent to the site and have open views currently. then just to the south are the buildings along beale street and then in the middle is the
water mark. then the large swath that runs really north-south is basically a zone that is the public space related to the embarcadaro as you move up and down. and you'll see this view study again in a moment related specifically to the seawall site. this right now is just focusing on the mass of the arena, which is quite a substantial building. and, so, it's the first step we took. >> thank you. >> and as we move further you'll see the basic design as has been developed until the site plan and an arrangement for the structures. you'll see the arena placed far to the east as possible, removing its mass from the embarcadaro, and open space plaza in between and just to the west of the arena and the multi-purpose facility that connects to a retail venue which is along the embarcadaro proper. and we'll talk more about that retail structure in a moment. then across the street is a seawall site which has currently a low level podium,
basically in the range of the podiums that exist today. and then some more dense structures slightly taller or taller atop that podium. and we'll address that again in just a moment. one of the views of the site from the distance shows how the arena and the multi-purpose venue itself will reach out into the water and create an interesting focal point along this portion of the waterfront that is essentially today an open space in between giants stadium and the financial district and the bay bridge itself. one of the other views, studies that we did was simply from public spaces. so, this is a view from an area that is essentially where main street reaches down to bryant street. today that's a lesser known street. but in the future when transbay terminal is built, one will imagine that street will be more pedestrianized than it is today. and also we'll see m